Hospital Financial Burden of Surgical Procedures for Periprosthetic Total Hip Arthroplasty Infection

Overview

Journal Arthroplast Today

Publisher Elsevier

Date 2025 Jan 31

PMID 39886561

Authors

Jesus M Villa

Tejbir S Pannu

Robert B Eysler

Vivek Singh

Alison K Klika

Carlos A Higuera

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Background: For reimbursement purposes, current coding fails to reflect the true complexity and resource utilization of hospital encounters for surgeries performed to treat periprosthetic total hip arthroplasty (THA) infection. Therefore, when compared to aseptic revisions, we sought to determine (1) Is length of stay (LOS) longer for septic surgeries? (2) Are septic procedures more expensive? and (3) How do different surgical procedures for infection compare with aseptic revisions on hospital LOS and charges?

Methods: Retrospective chart review of 596 unilateral THA reoperations (473 patients) performed at a single institution (January 2015 to November 2020). Demographics, professional (ie, physicians), and technical (ie, room, implants) hospital charges per case were compared between 6 different surgery types: (1) aseptic revision (control; n = 364); (2) debridement, antibiotics, and implant retention (n = 11); (3) explantation (n = 145); (4) spacer exchange (n = 7); (5) 2-stage reimplantation (n = 59); and (6) 1-stage reimplantation (n = 10).

Results: Overall, septic surgeries (n = 232) had longer LOS (mean 6.3 vs 3.3 days, < .001) and 43% higher total charges ( < .001), vs aseptic revisions. Particularly, explantations had longer LOS (7.1 vs 3.3 days) and 56% higher total charges (both < .001). When compared to aseptic revisions, proportional total charges for septic procedures were debridement, antibiotics, and implant retention +29%, = .4; explantation +56%, < .001; spacer exchange +69%, = .008; 2-stage reimplantation +11%, = .659; and 1-stage reimplantation +46%, = .06.

Conclusions: Some surgical procedures performed to treat periprosthetic THA infection are associated with longer LOS and significantly higher hospital charges when compared to aseptic revisions. Reimbursement adjustment is needed as current coding for septic reoperations does not reflect actual hospital resource consumption and this situation may limit access to patient care.

References

Duwelius P, Southgate R, Crutcher Jr J, Rollier G, Li H, Sypher K . Registry Data Show Complication Rates and Cost in Revision Hip Arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2023; 38(7S):S29-S33. DOI: 10.1016/j.arth.2023.04.050. View

Kurtz S, Higgs G, Lau E, Iorio R, Courtney P, Parvizi J . Hospital Costs for Unsuccessful Two-Stage Revisions for Periprosthetic Joint Infection. J Arthroplasty. 2021; 37(2):205-212. DOI: 10.1016/j.arth.2021.10.018. View

Ledford C, Perry K, Hanssen A, Abdel M . What Are the Contemporary Etiologies for Revision Surgery and Revision After Primary, Noncemented Total Hip Arthroplasty?. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2019; 27(24):933-938. DOI: 10.5435/JAAOS-D-17-00842. View

Kurtz S, Lau E, Watson H, Schmier J, Parvizi J . Economic burden of periprosthetic joint infection in the United States. J Arthroplasty. 2012; 27(8 Suppl):61-5.e1. DOI: 10.1016/j.arth.2012.02.022. View

Parisi T, Konopka J, Bedair H . What is the Long-term Economic Societal Effect of Periprosthetic Infections After THA? A Markov Analysis. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2017; 475(7):1891-1900. PMC: 5449335. DOI: 10.1007/s11999-017-5333-6. View

Quan T, Best M, Gu A, Stake S, Golladay G, Thakkar S . Septic Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty Is Not Adequately Compensated by Work Relative Value Units. J Arthroplasty. 2020; 36(5):1496-1501. DOI: 10.1016/j.arth.2020.11.034. View

Bozic K, Ries M . The impact of infection after total hip arthroplasty on hospital and surgeon resource utilization. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2005; 87(8):1746-51. DOI: 10.2106/JBJS.D.02937. View

Kremers H, Larson D, Crowson C, Kremers W, Washington R, Steiner C . Prevalence of Total Hip and Knee Replacement in the United States. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2015; 97(17):1386-97. PMC: 4551172. DOI: 10.2106/JBJS.N.01141. View

Toulson C, Walcott-Sapp S, Hur J, Salvati E, Bostrom M, Brause B . Treatment of infected total hip arthroplasty with a 2-stage reimplantation protocol: update on "our institution's" experience from 1989 to 2003. J Arthroplasty. 2008; 24(7):1051-60. DOI: 10.1016/j.arth.2008.07.004. View

10.

Kapadia B, Banerjee S, Cherian J, Bozic K, Mont M . The Economic Impact of Periprosthetic Infections After Total Hip Arthroplasty at a Specialized Tertiary-Care Center. J Arthroplasty. 2016; 31(7):1422-6. DOI: 10.1016/j.arth.2016.01.021. View

11.

Yao J, Hevesi M, Visscher S, Ransom J, Lewallen D, Berry D . Direct Inpatient Medical Costs of Operative Treatment of Periprosthetic Hip and Knee Infections Are Twofold Higher Than Those of Aseptic Revisions. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2020; 103(4):312-318. PMC: 8327701. DOI: 10.2106/JBJS.20.00550. View

12.

Merollini K, Crawford R, Graves N . Surgical treatment approaches and reimbursement costs of surgical site infections post hip arthroplasty in Australia: a retrospective analysis. BMC Health Serv Res. 2013; 13:91. PMC: 3601983. DOI: 10.1186/1472-6963-13-91. View

13.

Assmann G, Kasch R, Maher C, Hofer A, Barz T, Merk H . Comparison of health care costs between aseptic and two stage septic hip revision. J Arthroplasty. 2014; 29(10):1925-31. DOI: 10.1016/j.arth.2014.04.043. View